DOCSLIB.ORG

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan January 2013 Prepared by the National Park Service in collaboration with the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania and Virginia, the States of Delaware, Maryland, New York, and West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Cover Photos Top: NPS, NPS, NPS/Starke Jett Bottom: NPS/Starke Jett, Lara Lutz, James River Association Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan January 2013 Prepared by the National Park Service in collaboration with the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania and Virginia, the States of Delaware, Maryland, New York, and West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. National Park Service, Chesapeake Bay Office, Annapolis MD Acknowledgements This Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan was prepared in collaboration with a “Public Access Planning Action Team” composed of staff involved in public access planning and implementation at each of the Chesapeake watershed states, the District of Columbia, and the National Park Service. Action Team members involved in developing this plan include: • John Davy, National Park Service – Chesapeake Bay Office • Andy Fitch, National Park Service – Chesapeake Bay Office • Heather Bennett, National Park Service – Chesapeake Bay Office • Sarah Brzezinski, Chesapeake Research Consortium • Andrea Almond, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation • Tom Ford, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources • Lisa Gutierrez, Maryland Department of Natural Resources • Larry Hart, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries • Mark Hohengasser, New York State Parks • Jackie Kramer, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission • Michael Krumrine, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control • Susan Moerschel, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control • Danette Poole, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation • Bret Preston, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources • Tammy Stidham, National Park Service – National Capital Region • Emily Wilson, Maryland Department of Natural Resources Hundreds of citizens contributed directly to this plan as well, through public workshops and use of an online tool for suggesting public access sites. In fact, the majority of potential public access sites identified in this plan come directly from suggestions made by citizens. For more information on this plan, please contact: Superintendent, National Park Service, Chesa- peake Bay Office, 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 314, Annapolis MD 21403, (410) 260-2470. Table of Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... i I. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 II. The Demand for Public Access Executive Order and America’s Great Outdoors Report .................................... 3 Demand and Need at the State and Local Levels .................................................. 4 Economic Benefit ....................................................................................................... 5 Connecting Families with Nature ............................................................................ 7 III. Planning Process and Parameters Geographic Area ......................................................................................................... 9 Definition of Public Access and Types of Access Development ..................... 11 Definition of New Public Access ........................................................................... 11 Establishing the Baseline of Existing Access Sites .............................................. 12 Public Involvement in Identifying Access Sites ................................................... 12 IV. Current Status of Public Access in the Chesapeake Watershed ............. 15 V. Potential Public Access Sites in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Grouping Potential Sites by Readiness ................................................................. 22 Analysis of Potential New Access Sites ................................................................ 23 Geographic Areas with a High Interest in Public Access .................................. 27 Potential Sites in Relation to Existing Water Trails ............................................ 30 Camping and Related Water-to-Land Access ...................................................... 32 VI. Planning and Policy Considerations Providing Public Access in Urban Areas .............................................................. 33 Waters Trails as Motivators for Site Development ............................................. 35 Use Conflicts ............................................................................................................. 36 Railroads .................................................................................................................... 37 Access at Public Lands ............................................................................................ 37 Permitting Requirements ......................................................................................... 38 Universal Accessibility ............................................................................................. 38 Hydropower Licensing ............................................................................................ 38 State and Local Planning Documents ................................................................... 39 Working Waterfronts ............................................................................................... 39 Transportation Improvements and Public Access .............................................. 40 Funding Sources, Issues, and Strategies ............................................................... 41 VII. Summary and Next Steps Findings ..................................................................................................................... 43 Moving Forward ....................................................................................................... 45 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 47 Endnotes ............................................................................................................................ 49 Appendix A: Public Access Milestones, Baseline, and Tracking ............................... 51 Appendix B: Potential Access Sites ................................................................................ 55 Appendix C: Potential Funding Sources ....................................................................... 99 List of Maps Note: The maps included in this document necessarily compress the 64,000 square- mile Chesapeake Bay watershed to a letter-size page. Clearly, this is not the optimal way for viewing some of the information presented in this plan. Accordingly, each of the maps is also available through an online viewer, which allows the user to look at the information in different scales. Links for online maps are provided in the text of this document and also in the list below. Tidal Shorelines and Streams of Fifth-Order or Higher ..................................... 10 http://www.baygateways.net/ViewPA/index.html?config=streams.xml Existing Public Access Sites ....................................................................................... 17 http://www.baygateways.net/ViewPA/index.html?config=existing.xml Average Length of Shoreline or Riverbank between Existing Sites ................ 18 http://www.baygateways.net/ViewPA/index.html?config=distance.xml Potential Public Access Sites ...................................................................................... 24 http://www.baygateways.net/ViewPA/index.html?config=potential.xml Density of Potential Public Access Sites ................................................................. 29 Trails and Potential Public Access Sites ................................................................. 31 http://www.baygateways.net/ViewPA/index.html?config=trails.xml Providing adequate public access to the Bay and its tributaries is important for quality of life, the economy, and for long‐ term conservation of the region’s treasured natural and cultural resources. NPS Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan January 2013 | National Park Service | Chesapeake Bay Office Executive Summary The Chesapeake Bay region is rapidly urbanizing. More than eleven mil- lion people live in metropolitan areas close to the Bay, including signifi- cant diverse communities and new immigrants. Fewer people interact daily with the waters, forests, and open lands of the region. Despite this trend—or perhaps because of it—regional residents increasingly seek opportunities to reconnect with the outdoors. State, federal, and local governments are guardians of these opportuni- ties, providing public sites where everyone can enjoy the natural and cul- tural bounty of the Chesapeake Bay watershed—relaxing, learning, and reflecting in direct interaction with the region’s treasured outdoors. Some sites provide direct access to the Bay and its rivers for boating and swimming. Others provide spots where visitors without watercraft can fish, observe wildlife, walk trails, and camp along the water’s edge. Open, green spaces and waterways with ample public access bolster pub- lic health and quality of life. People rely on these special places to exer- cise, relax, and recharge their
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Shoreline Situation Report Counties of Fairfax and Arlington, City of Alexandria
    W&M ScholarWorks Reports 1979 Shoreline Situation Report Counties of Fairfax and Arlington, City of Alexandria Dennis W. Owen Virginia Institute of Marine Science Lynne C. Morgan Virginia Institute of Marine Science Nancy M. Sturm Virginia Institute of Marine Science Robert J. Byrne Virginia Institute of Marine Science Carl H. Hobbs III Virginia Institute of Marine Science Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports Part of the Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation Owen, D. W., Morgan, L. C., Sturm, N. M., Byrne, R. J., & Hobbs, C. H. (1979) Shoreline Situation Report Counties of Fairfax and Arlington, City of Alexandria. Special Report tn Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering No. 166. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary. https://doi.org/10.21220/ V5K134 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Shoreline Situation Report COUNTIES OF FAIRFAX AND ARLINGTON, CITY OF ALEXANDRIA Prepared and Published With Funds Provided to the Commonwealth by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric·Administration, Grant Nos. 04-7-158-44041 and 04-8-M01-309 Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 166 of the VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 1979 Shoreline Situation Report COUNTIES OF FAIRFAX AND ARLINGTON, CITY OF AL.EXANDRIA Prepared by: Dennis W.
    [Show full text]
  • Building Stones of Our Nation's Capital
    /h\q AaAjnyjspjopiBs / / \ jouami aqi (O^iqiii^eda . -*' ", - t »&? ?:,'. ..-. BUILDING STONES OF OUR NATION'S CAPITAL The U.S. Geological Survey has prepared this publication as an earth science educational tool and as an aid in understanding the history and physi­ cal development of Washington, D.C., the Nation's Capital. The buildings of our Nation's When choosing a building stone, Capital have been constructed with architects and planners use three char­ rocks from quarries throughout the acteristics to judge a stone's suitabili­ United States and many distant lands. ty. It should be pleasing to the eye; it Each building shows important fea­ should be easy to quarry and work; tures of various stones and the geolog­ and it should be durable. Today it is ic environment in which they were possible to obtain fine building stone formed. from many parts of the world, but the This booklet describes the source early builders of the city had to rely and appearance of many of the stones on materials from nearby sources. It used in building Washington, D.C. A was simply too difficult and expensive map and a walking tour guide are to move heavy materials like stone included to help you discover before the development of modern Washington's building stones on your transportation methods like trains and own. trucks. Ancient granitic rocks Metamorphosed sedimentary""" and volcanic rocks, chiefly schist and metagraywacke Metamorphic and igneous rocks Sand.gravel, and clay of Tertiary and Cretaceous age Drowned ice-age channel now filled with silt and clay Physiographic Provinces and Geologic and Geographic Features of the District of Columbia region.
    [Show full text]
  • Authorization to Discharge Under the Virginia Stormwater Management Program and the Virginia Stormwater Management Act
    COMMONWEALTHof VIRGINIA DEPARTMENTOFENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Permit No.: VA0088587 Effective Date: April 1, 2015 Expiration Date: March 31, 2020 AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE VIRGINIA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND THE VIRGINIA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ACT Pursuant to the Clean Water Act as amended and the Virginia Stormwater Management Act and regulations adopted pursuant thereto, the following owner is authorized to discharge in accordance with the effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in this state permit. Permittee: Fairfax County Facility Name: Fairfax County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System County Location: Fairfax County is 413.15 square miles in area and is bordered by the Potomac River to the East, the city of Alexandria and the county of Arlington to the North, the county of Loudoun to the West, and the county of Prince William to the South. The owner is authorized to discharge from municipal-owned storm sewer outfalls to the surface waters in the following watersheds: Watersheds: Stormwater from Fairfax County discharges into twenty-two 6lh order hydrologic units: Horsepen Run (PL18), Sugarland Run (PL21), Difficult Run (PL22), Potomac River- Nichols Run-Scott Run (PL23), Potomac River-Pimmit Run (PL24), Potomac River- Fourmile Run (PL25), Cameron Run (PL26), Dogue Creek (PL27), Potomac River-Little Hunting Creek (PL28), Pohick Creek (PL29), Accotink Creek (PL30),(Upper Bull Run (PL42), Middle Bull Run (PL44), Cub Run (PL45), Lower Bull Run (PL46), Occoquan River/Occoquan Reservoir (PL47), Occoquan River-Belmont Bay (PL48), Potomac River- Occoquan Bay (PL50) There are 15 major streams: Accotink Creek, Bull Run, Cameron Run (Hunting Creek), Cub Run, Difficult Run, Dogue Creek, Four Mile Run, Horsepen Run, Little Hunting Creek, Little Rocky Run, Occoquan Receiving Streams: River, Pimmit run, Pohick creek, Popes Head Creek, Sugarland Run, and various other minor streams.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Water Resource and Related Data in Loudoun County, VA
    Summary of Water Resource and Related Data in Loudoun County, VA Prepared by: Loudoun County Department of Building & Development Water Resources Team September, 2008 Loudoun County - Water Resources Data Summary 1 Groundwater Data .................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Loudoun County Groundwater, Well, and Pollution Sources ......................................................................................................... 3 1.2 USGS Groundwater Wells ................................................................................................................................................................ 3 1.3 County Hydrogeologic Studies ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 USGS NAWQA Wells ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.5 WRMP Monitoring Wells................................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.6 Water Quality Data from LCSA and VADH Public Water Supplies ............................................................................................. 3 1.7 Luck Stone Special Exception Water Quality Reports ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Prince William County Tidal Marsh Inventory
    W&M ScholarWorks Reports 5-1975 Prince William County Tidal Marsh Inventory Kenneth A. Moore Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gene M. Silberhorn Virginia Institute of Marine Science Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports Part of the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Moore, K. A., & Silberhorn, G. M. (1975) Prince William County Tidal Marsh Inventory. Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering No. 78. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary. https://doi.org/10.21220/V55H9H This Report is brought to you for free and open access by W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY TIDAL MARSH INVENTORY Special Report No. 78 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Kenneth A. Moore G.M. Silberhorn , Project Leader VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 Dr. William J. Hargis, Jr., Director MAY 1975 Acknowledgments Funds for the publication and distribution of this report have been provided by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management, Grant No. 04-5-158-5001. I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to Dr. Gene M. Silberhorn. His invaluable guidance and assistance made this report possible. I wish also to thank Col. George Dawes, for his review of this report and his assistance in the field and Dr. William J. Hargis, Dr. Michael E. Bender, Mr. James Mercer, Mr. Thomas Barnard, Miss Christine Plummer and Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resources Technical Report
    TRANSFORM 66 OUTSIDE the Beltway I-66 CORRIDOR 66 IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT Multimodal Solutions - 495 to Haymarket Tier 2 Draft Environmental Assessment 193 Town of Natural Resources TechnicalTown of Report Middleburg Herndon LOUDOUN FAUQUIER 50 267 Washington Dulles McLean International Airport 309 28 286 Tysons Corner West Falls Church 7 Chantilly Dunn Loring FALLS 123 CHURCH 29 Vienna LOUDOUN Fair Lakes 50 FAIRFAX CO. 66 15 FAIRFAX CITY Centreville 286 29 236 Manassas National Battlefield Park Haymarket Fairfax Station Springfield 66 Gainesville 234 28 MANASSAS PARK PRINCE WILLIAM 29 FAUQUIER 234 123 286 215 Ft. Belvoir MANASSAS MAY 12, 2015 Tier 2 Draft Environmental Assessment Natural Resources Technical Report Draft – May 12, 2015 I-66 Corridor Improvements Project – Natural Resources Technical Report May 12, 2015 Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Description ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 1-2 Chapter 2 – Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Water Resources ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Corridor Analysis for the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail in Northern Virginia
    Corridor Analysis For The Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail In Northern Virginia June 2011 Acknowledgements The Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC) wishes to acknowledge the following individuals for their contributions to this report: Don Briggs, Superintendent of the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail for the National Park Service; Liz Cronauer, Fairfax County Park Authority; Mike DePue, Prince William Park Authority; Bill Ference, City of Leesburg Park Director; Yon Lambert, City of Alexandria Department of Transportation; Ursula Lemanski, Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program for the National Park Service; Mark Novak, Loudoun County Park Authority; Patti Pakkala, Prince William County Park Authority; Kate Rudacille, Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority; Jennifer Wampler, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation; and Greg Weiler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The report is an NVRC staff product, supported with funds provided through a cooperative agreement with the National Capital Region National Park Service. Any assessments, conclusions, or recommendations contained in this report represent the results of the NVRC staff’s technical investigation and do not represent policy positions of the Northern Virginia Regional Commission unless so stated in an adopted resolution of said Commission. The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the jurisdictions, the National Park Service, or any of its sub agencies. Funding for this report was through a cooperative agreement with The National Park Service Report prepared by: Debbie Spiliotopoulos, Senior Environmental Planner Northern Virginia Regional Commission with assistance from Samantha Kinzer, Environmental Planner The Northern Virginia Regional Commission 3060 Williams Drive, Suite 510 Fairfax, VA 22031 703.642.0700 www.novaregion.org Page 2 Northern Virginia Regional Commission As of May 2011 Chairman Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Benthic Tmdls for the Goose Creek Watershed
    Benthic TMDLs for the Goose Creek Watershed Submitted by Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Prepared by Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin March 1, 2004 Revised April 27, 2004 ICPRB Report 04-5 This report has been prepared by the staff of the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. Support was provided by the Virginia Department of Environment Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the opinions or policies of the United States or any of its agencies, the several states, or the Commissioners of the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. Benthic TMDLs for the Goose Creek Watershed Submitted by Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Prepared by Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin March 1, 2004 Revised April 27, 2004 __________________________________________ Benthic TMDLs For the Goose Creek Watershed TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................I LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................IV LIST OF FIGURES ..............................................................................................................VI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Middle Potomac River Watershed Assessment: Potomac River Sustainable Flow and Water Resources Analysis
    Middle Potomac River Watershed Assessment: Potomac River Sustainable Flow and Water Resources Analysis April 2014 Middle Potomac River Watershed Assessment: Potomac River Sustainable Flow and Water Resources Analysis United States Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District The Natural Conservancy Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin Final Report April 2014 Recommended citation: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, The Nature Conservancy, and Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. 2014. Middle Potomac River Watershed Assessment: Potomac River Sustainable Flow and Water Resources Analysis. Final Report. 107 pp. and 11 appendices. Cover photograph: Great Falls on the Potomac River as seen from Virginia. Jim Palmer (ICPRB) Middle Potomac River Watershed Assessment Abstract The Middle Potomac River Watershed Assessment (MPRWA) was a collaborative effort to assess the relationship between streamflow alteration and ecological response in the Potomac River and its tributaries in a study area defined as the Middle Potomac. The assessment is comprised of five distinct components: (1) a large river environmental flow needs assessment, (2) a stream and small rivers environmental flow needs assessment, (3) a projection of future water uses, (4) a stakeholder engagement process, and (5) development of a concept or scope for a strategic comprehensive plan for watershed management. This information can be used to balance and mitigate water use conflicts and prevent ecological degradation. To assess flow needs in the Potomac watershed, the Ecologically Sustainable Water Management (ESWM) approach was used for large rivers and the Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration (ELOHA) framework was adapted for streams and small rivers. In the large rivers included in this study, based on currently available information, there has been no discernible adverse ecological impact on focal species due to human modification of flows.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquia Sandstone in Carlyle House and in Nearby Colonial Virginia by Rosemary Maloney
    Carlyle House August, 2012 D OCENT D ISPATC H Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority Aquia Sandstone in Carlyle House and in Nearby Colonial Virginia By Rosemary Maloney John Carlyle wanted to build an imposing home, and he The source of this tan to light-gray sandstone was wanted to build it of stone, like the great stone houses of familiar to the early settlers of Virginia. A quarry England and Scotland. But comparable stone was not was created there as early as 1650. Today, there available in the Atlantic coastal plain of Virginia. For are still ledges exposed on both sides of Interstate Carlyle the only convenient local source of stone hard 95 near Stafford and along Aquia Creek. This enough for building was the sandstone (or freestone as it stone is suitable for building purposes because of was known in colonial times) from the area around the cementation by silica of its components: Aquia Creek in Stafford County, Virginia, about 35 quartz, sand, and pebbles. But Aquia sandstone miles south of Alexandria. The name Aquia is believed has its flaws. It tends to weather unevenly and to be a corruption of the original Algonquin word therefore is more suitable for interior than exterior “Quiyough,” meaning gulls. construction. Construction of Carlyle House In a letter dated November 12, 1752, to his brother George in England, John Carlyle remarks on the difficulty of building his house in Alexandria. But his frustration is blended with optimism as he writes: “...the Violent Rains we have had this Fall, has hurt the Stone Walls that We Was obliged to Take down A part After it Was nigh its Height, which has been A Loss & great disapointment To me, however Time & patience Will over come all (I am In hopes)...” Apart from this single mention of stone walls, nowhere in the letters to George does John mention Aquia sandstone, or how it was quarried and transported.
    [Show full text]
  • Balls Bluff Battlefield National Historic Landmark
    NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK NOMINATION NPS Form 10-900 USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form (Rev. 8-86) OMB No. 1024-0018 BALL’S BLUFF BATTLEFIELD HISTORIC DISTRICT Page 1 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form 1. NAME OF PROPERTY Historic Name: Ball’s Bluff Battlefield Historic District Other Name/Site Number: VDHR 253-5021 / 053-0012-0005 2. LOCATION Street & Number: Not for publication: X City/Town: Leesburg, Virginia Vicinity: X State: VA County: Loudoun Code: 107 Zip Code: 20176 3. CLASSIFICATION Ownership of Property Category of Property Private: X Building(s): ___ Public-Local: X District: _X_ Public-State: _ X_ Site: ___ Public-Federal: _X _ Structure: ___ Object: ___ Number of Resources within Property Contributing Noncontributing 5 115 buildings 11 5 sites 8 24 structures 0 7 objects 24 151 Total Number of Contributing Resources Previously Listed in the National Register: 10_ 7: Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Historic District (M : 12-46) 2: Catoctin Rural Historic District (VDHR 053-0012) 1: Murray Hill (VDHR 053-5783) Name of Related Multiple Property Listing: The Civil War in Virginia, 1861 – 1865: Historic and Archaeological Resources. NPS Form 10-900 USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form (Rev. 8-86) OMB No. 1024-0018 BALL’S BLUFF BATTLEFIELD HISTORIC DISTRICT Page 2 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form 4. STATE/FEDERAL AGENCY CERTIFICATION As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this ____ nomination ____ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment C Receiving Waters by Watershed
    ATTACHMENT C RECEIVING WATERS BY WATERSHED ACCOTINK CREEK ACCOTINK BAY ACCOTINK CREEK BEAR BRANCH CALAMO RUN COON BRANCH CROOK BRANCH DANIELS RUN FIELD LARK BRANCH FLAG RUN GUNSTON COVE HUNTERS BRANCH KERNAN RUN LAKE ACCOTINK LONG BRANCH MASON RUN POHICK BAY TURKEY RUN BELLE HAVEN CAMERON RUN HUNTING CREEK POTOMAC RIVER QUANDER BROOK BULL NECK RUN BLACK POND BULLNECK RUN POTOMAC RIVER BULL RUN BULL RUN CAMERON RUN BACKLICK RUN CAMERON RUN COW BRANCH FAIRVIEW LAKE HOLMES RUN INDIAN RUN LAKE BARCROFT PIKES BRANCH POPLAR RUN TRIPPS RUN TURKEYCOCK CREEK TURKEYCOCK RUN Page 1 of 12 CUB RUN BIG ROCKY RUN BULL RUN CAIN BRANCH CUB RUN DEAD RUN ELKLICK RUN FLATLICK BRANCH FROG BRANCH OXLICK BRANCH ROCKY RUN ROUND LICK ROUND RUN SAND BRANCH SCHNEIDER BRANCH UPPER OCCOQUAN SEWAGE AUTHORITY DEAD RUN DEAD RUN POTOMAC RIVER DIFFICULT RUN ANGELICO BRANCH BRIDGE BRANCH BROWNS BRANCH CAPTAIN HICKORY RUN COLVIN MILL RUN COLVIN RUN DIFFICULT RUN DOG RUN FOX LAKE HICKORY RUN LAKE ANNE LAKE AUDUBON LAKE FAIRFAX LAKE NEWPORT LAKE THOREAU LITTLE DIFFICULT RUN MOONAC CREEK OLD COURTHOUSE SPRING BRANCH PINEY BRANCH PINEY RUN POTOMAC RIVER ROCKY BRANCH ROCKY RUN SHARPERS RUN SNAKEDEN BRANCH SOUTH FORK RUN Page 2 of 12 THE GLADE TIMBER LAKE WOLFTRAP CREEK WOLFTRAP RUN WOODSIDE LAKE DOGUE CREEK ACCOTINK BAY BARNYARD RUN DOGUE CREEK DOGUE RUN GUNSTON COVE LAKE D'EVEREUX NORTH FORK DOGUE CREEK PINEY RUN POTOMAC RIVER FOUR MILE RUN CAMERON RUN FOUR MILE RUN HUNTING CREEK LONG BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER HIGH POINT BELMONT BAY GUNSTON COVE MASON NECK OCCOQUAN BAY POHICK BAY
    [Show full text]